This is "the law" as in "this specific law" not "the legal system".

> If the law can't be used to protect us what measures remain available?

"Google" is not an entity -- it's composed of people, who make decisions and enable the things that Google does.

Don't hire them. Don't associate with them.

They're working for a company that, at this point, is obviously doing harm to the world. That's a choice they have the freedom to make. We have the freedom not to associate with people who make that choice.

Note that this advice is specific to non-visa-limited people in high-demand occupations, like other software engineers. They have a choice.

> "Google" is not an entity

It is. It's a legal entity called a corporation

> Don't hire them. Don't associate with them.

You no longer have a choice to opt out of google invading your privacy. The websites you visit everyday are letting google track you. The websites I use for my work are tracking me via google. My employer also requires chrome for some tasks which allows google to track what I do. I've even seen government websites using google trackers. You just can't escape google on the internet. Google is so pervasive even ARIN is allowing google to track people who go to their site.

Google is quickly intruding on offline public spaces as well.

When a user-hostile company becomes impossible to escape the only option left is to regulate it to limit the damage, but Illinois made a solid effort to do just that and it made zero difference

You do have a choice. You are allowing them to track you. Use protection.

Well, you pass better laws.

How should the law have been written to resolve the problems with Article III standing?

The law apparently says that hoarding biometric data is not protected -- only abusing it for harm is. Until a harm is artiulated, no foul. The law could be changed to overturn the longstanding precedent that facial data is not private.

The simple fact is that the digital world is a new world, and we need new law. Old law simply doesn't extrapolate.

read the law: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-0994.htm

It's short and pretty clear. the words harm, injury, abuse etc are nowhere to be found. Google violated the law as written but the judge didn't even address that because he decided they had no right to complain in the first place.

It reminds me of the case journalists made against the US government after it came to light that they were illegally wiretapping them. The fact that the government's mass surveillance program was exposed wasn't enough for the courts who decided that because the journalists who took it to court couldn't prove that specific instances of wiretapping occurred (information they couldn't possibly have because it's secret) they had no right to sue and the fact that wiretaps were put in place without a warrant wasn't even addressed.

The constitution can also be amended. I’m not saying it would be easy, but legal recourse is not ”eliminated”, nor are mobs and violence the only alternatives left.

Strong evidence of how amazing the human condition is these days: we're talking about mobs and violence because some somebody knows what your face looks like.

The CEO of Google can keep a photo of me on his bedside table for all I care, but if the laws passed by our elected officials will be ignored any time they threaten the growing surveillance state we're living under it would certainly say a lot about the human condition these days